Capture One samples

[Don Lashier]

Several folks asked for C1 samples compared to RIC. I finally threw together a website so here they are. If you haven't tried the trial yet you might want to take a look. When I get the time I'll be posting a few more - specifically sunsets. http://www.lashier.com

• DL

 

[Steve Ferrante]

Hey Don,

Great comparisons. A side by side using slightly smaller images may make it easier to compare. This way we wouldn't have to scroll up and down.

Good work

Steve

 

[Bill40515]

Several folks asked for C1 samples compared to RIC. I finally threw
together a website so here they are. If you haven't tried the trial
yet you might want to take a look. When I get the time I'll be
posting a few more - specifically sunsets. http://www.lashier.com

• DL

 

[Don Lashier]

I thought about making them smaller but decided to assume that most folks here are at a fairly high resolution. The horizontals just fit on my 1600x1200. I tried to avoid verticals but ended up using a few. Sorry.

• DL

Hey Don,

Great comparisons. A side by side using slightly smaller images
may make it easier to compare. This way we wouldn't have to scroll
up and down.

Good work

Steve

 

[SCsnapper]

Good analysis. Right on. Thank you for sharing your results.

A couple of questions:

1) How do you get linear conversions with Capture One?

2) I have version 1.02 on trial. How do you handle white (gray) balancing in Capture One? Do you use the hue wheel? If not, it doesn't seem to have much flexibility. Only the 4 settings they give you plus pointing at "good" areas on the picture.

3) What ICC profiles come with your software?

4) Where did you get your Capture One; did you pay $499 or $599? Did you get a CD or just a downloaded version? Did a manual come with it?

LOL Thanks for considering these...

 

[dadams]

Don:

Have you compared C1 to any of the Fred Miranda Actions? I will be doing so next week, just curious if you looked at those. i have been trying C1, and so far am very happy as a pro tool.

dave

--
imaginequus - david adams photography LLC
http://www.imaginequus.com
North Beach, New Jersey USA

 

[bee]

Cheers, Bee

 

[Don Lashier]

Good analysis. Right on. Thank you for sharing your results.
1) How do you get linear conversions with Capture One?

You don't, and you don't need to imo. C1 does have what they call a "linear" film curve but I find that although occasionally useful it doesn't bear any relationship to the RIC linear conversion.

2) I have version 1.02 on trial. How do you handle white (gray)
balancing in Capture One? Do you use the hue wheel? If not, it
doesn't seem to have much flexibility. Only the 4 settings they
give you plus pointing at "good" areas on the picture.

I shoot camera AWB and find that I rarely alter WB in C1. If I do, I usually try auto first, then try clicking the sampler at various points, and if one of these doesn't get me there, I'll tweak the closest using the color wheel. I find the sliders of little value instead I drag the color wheel curser in an outward spiral from the center until I find a setting I like.

All in all I find WB adjustment (when required) to be much easier in C1 than with RIC, where it basically reduces to trial and error or postponement to PS.

3) What ICC profiles come with your software?

C1 comes with two profiles for the 1D - "daylight" and "flash". It has a few more for the 1Ds. I've created a couple custom ones by editing the daylight one. But don't confuse profile choice with WB choice. This should be made on the camera if you don't intend to set it in C1 via grey shot or WB tools.

4) Where did you get your Capture One; did you pay $499 or $599?
Did you get a CD or just a downloaded version? Did a manual come
with it?

You can get it at US dealers for $499.
http://www.integrated-color.com

• DL

 

[Don Lashier]

Dave, I experimented quite extensively with various linear options, including FM's linear actions, several months ago. I believe that the results were much closer to C1 than the non-linear conversions I posted, but haven't don't specific image to image comparisions since getting C1.

I'll probably run through a couple comparisions at this point just to satisify my curiosity and to confirm my suspicions that I'll still prefer the C1 output.

• DL

Don:

Have you compared C1 to any of the Fred Miranda Actions? I will be
doing so next week, just curious if you looked at those. i have
been trying C1, and so far am very happy as a pro tool.

dave

--
imaginequus - david adams photography LLC
http://www.imaginequus.com
North Beach, New Jersey USA

 

[SCsnapper]

Thank you for your detailed answers to my questions.

 

[dadams]

Don --

Yea, my first impression is the same, C1 may have an edge (so to speak!).

I've started some testing today just looking at sharpening, the C1 onboard vs FM 1D action....very unscientific in my first runs so no comment yet.

I wonder, though, about resizing, as FM SI pro does a great job (seems better than Genuine Fractals) and is there any comparison to the C1 Develops image size parameter?

dave

imaginequus - david adams photography LLC
http://www.imaginequus.com
North Beach, New Jersey USA

 

[freestyle]

Thanks for the tests Don....I think the C1 pictures look great...Does C1 process only color or can you make your photos black and white also..Or do you need to run Fred Miranda's actions or DigiDaans channel mixer after you process in C1?

Gregg

 

[dadams]

Thanks for the tests Don....I think the C1 pictures look
great...Does C1 process only color or can you make your photos
black and white also..Or do you need to run Fred Miranda's actions
or DigiDaans channel mixer after you process in C1?

Gregg

There is a B&W view option (called greyscale) they include to help you set up the focus changes, but no actual 'conversion' that I've found so far.

d

--
imaginequus - david adams photography LLC
http://www.imaginequus.com
North Beach, New Jersey USA

 

[John Mason]

The camera profile choices are not for white balance like RIC or Breezebrowser but seem to subtle alter the response curves.

One thing I use Breezebrowser a lot for is to create screen viewing optimized JPEG's for proofing and image filing. I then convert indivudual selections to 16 bit tiffs for photoshop tweaks and printing. The downsize option in C1 produced dreadful results, but I may be doing it wrong. I'm going to play with it more this weekend from scratch. Anyone have any observations on the downsizing with C1?

Upsizing, at this point, I'm still planing on using QImage for final print work. I'd really like to use C1 as a total replacement for Breezebrowser. It also looks like I can use it as a functional replacement for most PS work I do (unless I'm being creative).

Initial 100% comparisions of the noise reduction, for instance, show C1 much better than Breezebrowser in lowering noise without "smearing" the image - which is the best way I can put the difference to what I'm seeing. I'm also very pleased with the sharpening tools in C1 as well as the soft sharpening for portrait work.

I still need to figure out how cropping works. At this point, about 2 working days reviewing the software, I'm very pleased. I like the way you can apply a WB or Exposure or Curve to a range of images. I wish they have a way to apply all settings to a range of images. They may, but I just haven't found it yet.

Also, their licensing is for 3 hardware platforms per user which is perfect for me. All in all I'm very impressed. The color profiling they are using for their raw conversions are creating very accurate colors and prints from what I'm seeing so far.

--
John Mason - Lafayette, IN

 

[Don Lashier]

I'm going to be doing some sharpening comparisions and upresing tests soon (C1 vs PS, and perhaps Qimage) as I'm interested in cutting PS out of the loop for most images. If only C1 would rotate to correct my crooked horizons

• DL

Don --

Yea, my first impression is the same, C1 may have an edge (so to
speak!).
I've started some testing today just looking at sharpening, the C1
onboard vs FM 1D action....very unscientific in my first runs so no
comment yet.

I wonder, though, about resizing, as FM SI pro does a great job
(seems better than Genuine Fractals) and is there any comparison to
the C1 Develops image size parameter?

dave

imaginequus - david adams photography LLC
http://www.imaginequus.com
North Beach, New Jersey USA

 

[John Mason]

resizing downward works great

now I have to test where the image choices for processing are stored. Qimage uses FLT files in same directory as images.

I'm not sure where processing choices store here, but I don't want to lose them when I move pics.

This looks really great. Correct all the pics however you want. This defines a batch. Output some or all for a proofing directory in scaled jpegs.

Output any for printing or editing as 16 bit tiffs all off the same session.

I'm really beginning to like this. Also, on a noisy image, the preview window shows much more noise than the final image does.

The camera profile choices are not for white balance like RIC or
Breezebrowser but seem to subtle alter the response curves.

One thing I use Breezebrowser a lot for is to create screen viewing
optimized JPEG's for proofing and image filing. I then convert
indivudual selections to 16 bit tiffs for photoshop tweaks and
printing. The downsize option in C1 produced dreadful results, but
I may be doing it wrong. I'm going to play with it more this
weekend from scratch. Anyone have any observations on the
downsizing with C1?

Upsizing, at this point, I'm still planing on using QImage for
final print work. I'd really like to use C1 as a total replacement
for Breezebrowser. It also looks like I can use it as a functional
replacement for most PS work I do (unless I'm being creative).

Initial 100% comparisions of the noise reduction, for instance,
show C1 much better than Breezebrowser in lowering noise without
"smearing" the image - which is the best way I can put the
difference to what I'm seeing. I'm also very pleased with the
sharpening tools in C1 as well as the soft sharpening for portrait
work.

I still need to figure out how cropping works. At this point,
about 2 working days reviewing the software, I'm very pleased. I
like the way you can apply a WB or Exposure or Curve to a range of
images. I wish they have a way to apply all settings to a range of
images. They may, but I just haven't found it yet.

Also, their licensing is for 3 hardware platforms per user which is
perfect for me. All in all I'm very impressed. The color
profiling they are using for their raw conversions are creating
very accurate colors and prints from what I'm seeing so far.

--
John Mason - Lafayette, IN

--
John Mason - Lafayette, IN

 

[Todd Berk]

A few questions from a new 1D and C1 user:

Should I always use the flash profile when shooting flash?

What about portrait profile?

What is the "film extra shadow" appropriate for instead of standard?

Where are the settings stored? I want to move them to my pics folder (like qimage).

How much sharpening do you guys use on family pictures for print? Soft or standard setting?

Where do you get a $499 license?

Any other hints would be appreciated. Seems like a great piece of software. I guess it should be for the price.

Thanks,
Todd

The camera profile choices are not for white balance like RIC or
Breezebrowser but seem to subtle alter the response curves.

One thing I use Breezebrowser a lot for is to create screen viewing
optimized JPEG's for proofing and image filing. I then convert
indivudual selections to 16 bit tiffs for photoshop tweaks and
printing. The downsize option in C1 produced dreadful results, but
I may be doing it wrong. I'm going to play with it more this
weekend from scratch. Anyone have any observations on the
downsizing with C1?

Upsizing, at this point, I'm still planing on using QImage for
final print work. I'd really like to use C1 as a total replacement
for Breezebrowser. It also looks like I can use it as a functional
replacement for most PS work I do (unless I'm being creative).

Initial 100% comparisions of the noise reduction, for instance,
show C1 much better than Breezebrowser in lowering noise without
"smearing" the image - which is the best way I can put the
difference to what I'm seeing. I'm also very pleased with the
sharpening tools in C1 as well as the soft sharpening for portrait
work.

I still need to figure out how cropping works. At this point,
about 2 working days reviewing the software, I'm very pleased. I
like the way you can apply a WB or Exposure or Curve to a range of
images. I wish they have a way to apply all settings to a range of
images. They may, but I just haven't found it yet.

Also, their licensing is for 3 hardware platforms per user which is
perfect for me. All in all I'm very impressed. The color
profiling they are using for their raw conversions are creating
very accurate colors and prints from what I'm seeing so far.

--
John Mason - Lafayette, IN

 

[John Mason]

when you pick a profile like flash or tungston - it appears to be applied to all images - which is wrong of course. What is the work-around?

 

[SCsnapper]

You guys with Capture One tests in the works: please tell us about your results. They are VERY valuable for me to help learn about this software. I have C1 and Qimage, so test results on these are especially appreciated.

PS--Can you crop first and sharpen later in Qimage? How? (I understand it is best to sharpen last.)

 

[Don Lashier]

The camera profile choices are not for white balance like RIC or
Breezebrowser but seem to subtle alter the response curves.

Good observation. I haven't really checked this out but all the profiles seem the same to me except for "tungsten", and it doesn't alter the wb like you'd expect. So far I'm just sticking with the "daylight" or a "daylight +sat" that I created and controlling wb either thru the camera or after it's in C1.

weekend from scratch. Anyone have any observations on the
downsizing with C1?

Haven't tried it except for the "export previews" which seemed to work great. I'm currently downsizing in PS. Note that one of C1's nifty features is that it lets you selectively specify multiple outputs so your normal processing will create a fullsize PS working tiff image, a reduced jpeg for the web, and a thumbnail for the web.

Upsizing, at this point, I'm still planing on using QImage for
final print work. I'd really like to use C1 as a total replacement
for Breezebrowser. It also looks like I can use it as a functional
replacement for most PS work I do (unless I'm being creative).

I haven't done much upsizing (via any method) yet, but if I find this necessary I'd prefer to do this in C1 also assuming it gives acceptable results. Guess it's testing time...

Initial 100% comparisions of the noise reduction, for instance,
show C1 much better than Breezebrowser in lowering noise without
"smearing" the image - which is the best way I can put the
difference to what I'm seeing. I'm also very pleased with the
sharpening tools in C1 as well as the soft sharpening for portrait
work.

Noise reduction isn't usually an issue for me, but I did notice that C1 generally avoids the bayer artifacting that sometimes shows in small high-contrast detail with RIC. This is with "banding suppression" off and "noise reduction" set low in C1.

• DL

I still need to figure out how cropping works. At this point,
about 2 working days reviewing the software, I'm very pleased. I
like the way you can apply a WB or Exposure or Curve to a range of
images. I wish they have a way to apply all settings to a range of
images. They may, but I just haven't found it yet.

Also, their licensing is for 3 hardware platforms per user which is
perfect for me. All in all I'm very impressed. The color
profiling they are using for their raw conversions are creating
very accurate colors and prints from what I'm seeing so far.

--
John Mason - Lafayette, IN